GRANT et al v. USA, No. 1:2016cv01660 - Document 12 (Fed. Cl. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re: denying 8 Motion for Default Judgment and plaintiff's claims against all defendants other than the United States are DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Elaine D. Kaplan. (dw) Copy to parties.

Download PDF

GRANT et al v. USA Doc. 12 ORl0lNAt llntbt @nitr! $rtatts @ourt of frltrul @lsfmg No. 16-1660C (Pro Se) Filed: February 22,2017 | Not for Publication ESTATE OF MATTHEW GRANT et al. Plaintifl Keywords: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules ofthe Court ofFederal Claims; Default Judgment; RCFC 55; Subject Matter Jurisdiction. FILED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FEB 22 2017 U.S. COURT OF Defendant. FEDERAL CI.4IMS Gary Grant, Halifax, NC, Plaintiff Pro Se. Michael A. Rodriguez, Trial Attomey, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant, with whom were Deborah A. Bynum, Assistant Director, Robert E. Kirschman, -/r., Director, wfi Chad A. Readler, Actins Assistant Attomey General. OPINION AND ORDER KAPLAN, Judge. I. Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment On February 13,2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment. Docket No. g. Plaintiffs allege that seven individual defendants were "served with process on December 19, 2016," and that "[u]nder the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," each of them was required to file an answer by Janu aty 6,2017 . Pls.' Mot. for Default J. at 1. The govemment filed a iesponse on February 17 ,2017 , in which it argued that Plaintiffs' motion is "premature," because Rule 12(a)(l)(A) ofthe Rules of the courr of Federal claims (RCFC) provides sixty days for the govemment to file an answer to a complaint. Def.'s Resp. at 1, Docket No. 10. Additionally, the govemment asserts that Plaintiffs' motion is meritless because the United States is the onlv proper defendant in the Court of Federal Claims. Id. at 2. The RCFC "govem the procedure in the United States court of Federal claims in all suits." RCFC 1; see also 28 u.s.c. $ 2071 (providing that 'all courts established by Act of congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their businesst: za u.s.c. $ 2503 (stating that "proceedings ofthe Court of Federal Claims shall be in accordance with such rules ofpractice and procedure . . . as the court ofFederal claims may prescribe"). Under the Dockets.Justia.com RCFC, the "United States must file an answer to a complaint within 60 days after being served with the complaint." RCFC l2(axl)(A.).1 Here, Plaintiffs filed their complaint on December 19,2016. Docket No. l. Pursuant to RCFC 4(c), the date of filing is also the date of service. Accordingly, the govemment's answer was originally due by February 17,2017. See RCFC 12(a)(1\A). Thus, Plaintiffs' motion, filed February 13,2017, was premature, and Plaintiffs' allegation that an answer was due by January 6,2077 is incorrect. Moreover, on February 16,2017, the govemment filed a motion seeking an extension of time within which to file its answer. Docket No. 9. The Court granted that motion and the govemment's answer is not due until April 18, 2017. Docket No. 11. For these reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment is DENIED. II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Individual Defendants The Court may raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time. Rick's Mushroom Serv.. Inc. v. United States , 521 F .3d 133 8, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see also Arbaush v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006) (noting that an objection to federal court subject matter j urisdiction may be raised by a court on its own initiative at any stage in the litigation). "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." RCFC 12(h)(3); see also Arbaush, 546 U.S. at50647,514 (stating that "courts . . . have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party"). The Court has no jurisdiction over claims against any defendant other than the United States. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (,[I]fthe relief sought is against others than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction ofthe court."); Jiron v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 190, 198-99 (2014) (,,It is well settled that the United States is the only proper defendant in the United States Court of Federal Claims." (quotation omitted)). Therefore, Plaintiffs' claims against all defendants other than the United States are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment is DENIED and Plaintiffs' claims against all defendants other than the United States are DiSMISSED without prejudice. I In any event, the court notes that Fed. R. civ. p. 12(a)(2) provides that.,[t]he united states . . must serve an answer to a complaint . . . within 60 days after service on the United States attomey." . IT IS SO ORDERED. u ELAINE D. Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.